DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 12/10/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0184287) in view of Dudas (WO 2007/082167), and further in view of Blanc (U.S. Pub No. 20200279303), and further in view of Kondo (JP 2008/211595).
EXAMINER NOTE: The translated Kondo reference does not have paragraph numbers. Therefore, Examiner will quote direct citations from the reference.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 18, Lipscomb teaches determining a template from multiple types of templates as a production template based on an input instruction of a user (Paragraph 0052, “drill down” represents customer input); acquiring, in response to determining that a type of commodity information inputted by the user matches with a type of the production template, a commodity picture or a commodity video material related to the commodity information (Paragraphs 0055-0056, “check availability” indicates matching), wherein each type of template among the multiple types of templates corresponds to one type of commodity, and the multiple types of templates display different characteristics of respective types of commodities (Paragraphs 0037, 0052-0055, 0094-0097); and reusing by the server preset specifical events by processing the commodity picture or the commodity video material based on the production template to generate a commodity video (Paragraphs 0050, 0055-0056, specific categorized templates having specific content for each category represents “specifical events” that are reused each time they are selected by an advertiser).
Lipscomb does not appear to specify reusing special effects and music on the production template. However, Dudas teaches reusing special effects and music on the production template (Paragraph 0155). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to reuse special effects and music of a template since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lipscomb does not appear to specify displaying basic information of a commodity on the video generation interface, and determining commodity information inputted by the user based on a clicking operation on the displayed basic information by the user. However, Blanc teaches displaying basic information of a commodity on the video generation interface, and determining commodity information inputted by the user based on a clicking operation on the displayed basic information by the user (Figures 1A-1B Reference 108, Paragraph 0014). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to allow selection of displayed basic information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lipscomb does not appear to specify wherein the method further comprises recording a usage count of each type of templates, and recommending types of templates based on the usage count of each type of templates. However, Kondo teaches wherein the method further comprises recording a usage count of each type of templates, and recommending types of templates based on the usage count of each type of templates (“When displaying the recommended template display unit, the public browsing unit 206 presents the processing result moving image browsing count and the corresponding scenario template usage count in descending order. In addition, when a specific API is designated by the user, the public browsing unit 206 ranks and displays the scenario templates including them”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recommend templates based on a usage count since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
These claims introduce the specific data content of the basic information (the basic information comprising one or more of stock keeping unit of the commodity, a commodity cover picture of the commodity, or the commodity name of the commodity). It could be argued that Blanc does not teach such data content. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the method (or structurally programmed) steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of data content. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of Patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have displayed any type of data content. Such data content does not functionally relate to the steps and the subjective interpretation of the data content does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 20, Lipscomb teaches judging, after the user logs in, whether the user has business registration information (Paragraphs 0035, 0050, system stores user-input business information in association with user account); acquiring, in response to a judgment result being that the user has the business registration information, basic information of a commodity on sale by the user based on the business registration information (Paragraphs 0035, 0050, system provides access to user-input business information stored in association with user account); determining the commodity information inputted by the user, based on an operation on the basic information by the user (Paragraph 0038); and acquiring, in response to determining that the type of the commodity information inputted by the user matches with the type of the production template, the commodity picture or the commodity video material related to the commodity information (Paragraph 0056, “check availability” indicates matching); and prompting, in response to the judgement result being that the user does not have the business registration information, the user to input the commodity information, and acquiring, in response to determining that the type of the commodity information inputted by the user matches with the type of the production template, the commodity picture or the commodity video material related to the commodity information (Paragraphs 0038, 0056, if the user has no business information input, that information will need to be input before continuing).
Regarding claims 7, 15, Lipscomb teaches binding the commodity video to a commodity code (Paragraph 0050, the commodity video is bound to an account, and any identification of that account is considered to be a “code”).
Lipscomb does not appear to specify uploading the commodity video bound to the commodity code to a promotional display position of a main picture of the commodity. However, according to the instant specification at Paragraph 0109, the “promotional display position of a main picture of the commodity” is merely a position of the commodity detail page. Uploading and displaying product videos on advertising pages that sell those products has been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. Amazon has provided a photo gallery of each product sold through their site, the photo gallery including at least one video of each product, for well-over a decade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to display a video advertisement for a product on a product website in order to better entice viewers to purchase the product.
Regarding claims 8, 16, Lipscomb teaches sending, in response to determining that the type of the commodity information inputted by the user does not match with the type of the production template, a prompt message for prompting replacement of the production template (Paragraph 0056, a message of unavailability represents a prompt message).
Regarding claim 22, Lipscomb does not appear to specify adding a recommendation tag for a top three types of templates by usage count based on the usage count of each type of templates. However, Kondo teaches adding a recommendation tag for a top three types of templates by usage count based on the usage count of each type of templates. (“When displaying the recommended template display unit, the public browsing unit 206 presents the processing result moving image browsing count and the corresponding scenario template usage count in descending order. In addition, when a specific API is designated by the user, the public browsing unit 206 ranks and displays the scenario templates including them”, the usage count displayed is considered to be a “recommendation tag”, it is displayed for all the templates, including the top three). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recommend templates based on a usage count since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0184287) in view of Dudas (WO 2007/082167), and further in view of Blanc (U.S. Pub No. 20200279303), and further in view of Kondo (JP 2008/211595), and further in view of Meikle (U.S. Pub No. 2013/0330062).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 19, Lipscomb does not appear to specify transferring music in the production template to a frequency domain, calculating local extrema of audio energy and misalignment convolution, and determining accent points and beats; generating the commodity picture into an initial video and extracting multiple video segments of a preset duration from the initial video; and merging the multiple video segments in a form of transition animation based on the accent points and the beats, to generate the commodity video. However, Meikle teaches transferring music in the production template to a frequency domain (Paragraph 0070), calculating local extrema of audio energy, and determining accent points and beats (Paragraphs 0041-0043); generating the commodity picture into an initial video and extracting multiple video segments of a preset duration from the initial video (Figures 8A, 8B); and merging the multiple video segments in a form of transition animation based on the accent points and the beats, to generate the commodity video (Figures 8A, 8B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a video file based on the accent points and beats in order to create a more immersive and engaging experience for the viewer.
Lipscomb and Meikle do not appear to specify calculating local extrema of misalignment convolution. However, audio misalignment is a common old and well known problem within audio synchronization and the calculating and correction of audio misalignment has been an old and well known process that has been around long before the effective filing date of the instant invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate local extrema of misalignment convolution in order to ensure the best audio synching and sound quality possible.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0184287) in view of Dudas (WO 2007/082167), and further in view of Blanc (U.S. Pub No. 20200279303), and further in view of Kondo (JP 2008/211595), and further in view of Grimaud (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0043095).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 21, Lipscomb teaches performing special effects processing on key information, and writing the key information after the special effects processing into the commodity video (Paragraphs 0045-0047, 0049).
Lipscomb does not appear to specify acquiring a commodity detail page related to the commodity information, based on the commodity information; extracting key information in the commodity detail page. However, Grimaud teaches acquiring a commodity detail page related to the commodity information, based on the commodity information; extracting key information in the commodity detail page (Paragraph 0036-0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to extract additional information about a product from a website in order to add important and informative details about the product to the video.
Lipscomb teaches special effect processing (Paragraph 0049), but does not appear to specify performing filter and light and shadow effect processing on the commodity video in which the key information is written. However, filter and light and shadow effects have been old and well known within the realm of video editing long before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. Adobe After Effects and Final Cut Pro are both program that have been around for longer than a decade and each provide such filter functionality. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add filter and light and shadow effects to a video to make the video more appealing to the viewer.
Regarding claims 5, 13, Lipscomb and Grimaud do not appear to specify extracting the key information in the commodity detail page using a language model, the language model being obtained from training based on the type of the production template. However, language models have been old and well known long before the effective filing date of the instant invention. Specifically, OCR is an example of a language model that has been around for over a decade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a language model to extract information from a website since language models such as OCR are an effective and easy tool to recognize relevant information.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0184287) in view of Dudas (WO 2007/082167), and further in view of Blanc (U.S. Pub No. 20200279303), and further in view of Kondo (JP 2008/211595), and further in view of Shelton (U.S. Pub No. 2009/0196512).
Regarding claims 6, 14, Lipscomb does not appear to specify pre-processing the commodity picture; identifying a text area of the pre-processed picture; and removing text content in the text area. However, Shelton teaches pre-processing the commodity picture; identifying a text area of the pre-processed picture; and removing text content in the text area (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter an image in any way needed by the advertiser, including removing unwanted text, in order to make the final presentation more satisfactory to the advertiser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 as currently written is allowable over prior art. However, this claim depends from currently rejected claims, which represents a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Response to Arguments
All arguments are believed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to preprocessing of images comprising cutting or splicing:
CN 116362996 to Guo
CN 105874449 to Ye
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621